The company (plaintiff) appealed to the commercial court with a claim to the National Agency of Ukraine for identification, search and management of assets obtained from corruption and other crimes (defendant) to invalidate the contract of sale of assets. The plaintiff emphasized that the defendant deliberately misled him by reporting circumstances that did not correspond to reality, in particular regarding the possibility of using the property for its intended purpose, the value of the property and the grounds for its sale.
The KGS of the Supreme Court left unchanged the decision and resolution of the previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim in view of the following.
A transaction may be recognized as having been committed under the influence of deception in the case of intentional and purposeful misleading of the other party regarding the facts that affect the conclusion of the transaction. A sign of deception is intent: the person knows about the presence or absence of certain circumstances and that the other party, if he had this information, would not have entered into a legal relationship disadvantageous to him. Fraud also occurs if the party denies the existence of circumstances that could prevent the transaction from being carried out, or if he is silent about their existence. That is, deception takes place when, in order to commit a transaction, either false information is provided or it is kept silent. Moreover, this is done on purpose, with the aim of committing the deed. Therefore, deception is certain culpable, deliberate actions of a party that tries to assure the other party of such circumstances and consequences of the act, which cannot actually occur.
All these circumstances (the presence of intent in the defendant's actions, the significance of the circumstances regarding which the person was misled, and the very fact of deception) must be proved by the person who acted under the influence of deception (the plaintiff).
On June 20, 2019, electronic auctions for the sale of property were announced, and the plaintiff was recognized as the winner. Based on the results of the mentioned auctions, the defendant and the plaintiff signed an asset purchase and sale agreement.
The courts established that the plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the contract was aware of the property, in particular, of the initiation of criminal proceedings, of the recognition of this property as material evidence, of the seizure of property and the grounds for the sale of such property.
At the same time, participation in the auction for the sale of an asset and submitting an offer regarding the price of the asset is a voluntary action of a legal entity.
The circumstances established by the courts of previous instances testify to the presence of the plaintiff's will to conclude the disputed deed, awareness of the property at the time of concluding the disputed deed, the grounds for its implementation, and the lack of intent in the defendant's actions. The fact that the defendant deceived the plaintiff during the conclusion of the contract of sale of assets by the plaintiff was not proven, as it was not proven that the defendant communicated information that did not correspond to the truth, or kept silent about circumstances that were of significant importance for the conclusion of the deed.
You can read more about the text of the resolution of the KGS of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/15715/19 at the link https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/102147579 .